From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Criticisms" section

The section entitled "Criticisms" doesn't actually come out and say who was criticising the league, although there are plenty of references to various books printed in the 1970s thriugh 1990s (none of which I have copies of.) The comments about the league's arguably unfair (and certainly restrictive) labor practices are fair enough, as are the comments about how few non-Canadian players there were, even on the four US-based teams. Even though I edited that part of the section, I am not sure if the comment about the playoff system being too easy is a fair one: the only alternatives would have been even easier. (Not to belabor the point, but the only other options would have been to have no playoffs at all, a 1-round 2-team playoff, or a system where one or more of the top teams got a bye.) The 50-mile territorial rights rule did give Montreal and Toronto a huge advantage, and Detroit a smaller advantage— but I marked "Boston" as dubious because then as now there was a lively amateur hockey scene in the Boston area. The Bruins' problem wasn't that young men weren't playing hockey in and around Boston so much as that the team was only recruiting players from the remainder of Canada outside the Montreal and Toronto areas. As for the Red Wings, they signed few if any players from Michigan, even though there were doubtless good young players on both sides of the St. Clair River. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 19:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

One can make such a speculative argument, but the fact of the matter was that the NHL was devoid of American players, not just through the most of the Original Six era but for years after expansion; major American-born stars didn't emerge before the 1980s. It's tough to argue that Boston had a leg up because it could sign Massachusetts-born players, when both plainly few (if any) in the league thought American players could compete, and Boston in that era suffered the longest playoff drought in NHL history up to the 1967 expansion. As far as books for which you personally have no copies, I commend ordering copies up through your public library if you'd like to review them yourself. Ravenswing 22:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The Bruins' first regular local player seems to have been Mike Milbury, who was born in 1952 and postdates the Original Six era. He played college hockey and was signed as a free agent. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 01:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yep, Milbury was the first (tough to count Myles Lane, who only spent parts of two seasons with the Bruins). As to that, only one Massachusetts-born and raised player played so much as fifty games in the whole Original Six era -- Bill Moe, and there were just two others in NHL history up until that time. Even now, over forty years after Milbury's debut, looking over the list of New England-born and raised players, if I were to pick out significant stars, there's not as much as a dozen: Amonte, Barrasso, Ftorek, Carpenter, Stevens (coincidentally, a freshman in my high school when I was a senior), Roenick, Tkachuk, Guerin, Janney, Quick and Leclair. By contrast, never mind mere significant stars, there are nearly twice as many Hall of Famers born within the municipal limits of Montreal. Ravenswing 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Original Six vs Solid Six

The popular term Original Six is incorrect. It perpetuates a false history of the NHL. I suggest that the term Solid Six be substituted in the name of accuracy.

The NHL began in 1917 with 4 (and sometimes 3) "original" teams over the first 7 seasons. (Only two of those [MTL & TOR] still exist in 2018.) The Boston Bruins, the first American team, didn't join until the 8th NHL season. Only in the 10th NHL season did the NY Rangers, Chicago Black Hawks and Detroit Red Wings (née Cougars) finally join the league. Hardly "original" teams with 7 previously existing clubs already playing.

However, by the beginning of the 1942 season the league had been decimated by WW II and reduced to six major market teams. These remaining teams, while they constituted the entire league for the next 25 years, are erroneously referred to the "Original Six" when they are clearly not. Even the NHL does not acknowledge four of these six teams as being "original" members of the league.

I propose that this article, and other Wikipedia references to "Original Six", be changed to the "Solid Six". In support of this suggestion, I refer to "The Complete Encyclopedia of Ice Hockey" (Prentice-Hall, 1970), Part IV, "From a Solid Six...To Expansion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustance McGargle ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The answer to that is supplied by WP:COMMONNAME, which holds that the proper name for an article is the name for a subject most frequently used in English-language sources; thus, Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton, or Rhode Island instead of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. I'm sure you can agree that the number of uses for "Original Six" would overwhelmingly dwarf all other terms combined. Ravenswing 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Criticisms, II

@ Iamalwaysrightalways:, that section you removed earlier today (which I just restored) may not have made sense to you, but you didn't ask either. Simply put, static rosters led to 20-year+ careers and a lack of skilled rookies because they were static: if the Powers That Were weren't all that interested in competition, and felt the fans liked familiar faces, then there just wouldn't be change. This was the opinion of many commentators, contemporaneously and afterwards. Ravenswing 18:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

You sentence make no sense. I take it Terry Sawchuk, and Bobby Orr, two of the greatest players in their positions were mediocre rookies? It still does not make sense. It was poorly written. It's better to not have it there, than written where it sounds as if the writer was writing nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamalwaysrightalways ( talk • contribs)
Good grief. The sentence reads "... it is generally accepted that the weakest Calder Trophy winners (Rookies of the Year) of all time were selected in the 1950s and 1960s." It does not say "Every Calder winner in the Original Six era sucked." But Pentti Lund? Jack Gelineau? Larry Regan? Kent Douglas? Brit Selby? Howie Meeker? Compare and contrast with the expansion era, even with many more teams. For example, the stretch between 1970 and 1995 saw nineteen Calder winners make the Hall of Fame, and the six who didn't were all perennial impact players.

You may not like the assertion, and you don't seem to agree with it, but that's a long way from it "not making sense." Ravenswing 19:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree the section shouldn't be removed outright, but it does need some clarity for the uninitiated. I'll try to add some specifics here later. Also, if there are opposing. views from reliable sources, those should also be presented in the section. BilCat ( talk) 00:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Fitzgerald coining the term

Among other bits of evidence, check this out -- [1]. There is no evidence that the term was used prior to Fitzgerald's. Ravenswing 01:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Original_Six&oldid=1213100496"